My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/28/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
10/28/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:20 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:12:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/28/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
93
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
OCT 2 8 1986 BOOK 66 rn,,L 257 - <br />Mr. Mensing stated Question #1 could be eliminated as he <br />felt this had been clarified in an earlier discussion. Re #2, <br />where site plan review is required for a mobile home but not a <br />single family structure, Mr. Mensing did not feel that is good <br />and asked that the Commission direct staff to look into this. <br />Chairman Scurlock noted that when he pulled a building <br />permit, he had to locate not only his house on the lot, but also <br />the septic tank and well, and Planner Boling confirmed that is <br />correct; it is not done through site plan approval, but through <br />the building permit processing for single family homes. <br />In discussion it was noted that the fee for the building <br />permit is $90 and for a minor site plan, it is $125. Mr. Mensing <br />stated that is the issue - it is $125 vs. $90 to furnish the same <br />information because of the way it is done, and he believed that <br />is discriminatory. <br />Commissioner Wodtke suggested that staff review this and <br />look at the time requirements, inspections required, etc., to see <br />if there are any inequities.and bring a report back. <br />Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the Commission accepted <br />the fee structure presented; so, if anyone is discriminating, it <br />is us. However, he agreed that we should direct staff to take a <br />look at this. <br />Mr. Mensing then addressed #3 re paving of 129th Street from <br />79th Ave. south to the proposed subdivision on Lot 2, Seca 30, <br />Fleming Grant. <br />Attorney Vitunac informed the Board, as far as procedure is <br />concerned, this is a site plan or zoning requirement which has to <br />go through the Planning & Zoning Comm -fission and there is an <br />appeal process. Actually, Mr. Mensing is jumping the gun. <br />Chairman Scurlock also felt that this is not the place for <br />discussion of Mr. Mensing's item #4 in regard to the behavior of <br />some of our employees. The County Administrator hires and <br />directs the staff, and unless his decision is appealed, We don't <br />just have a public forum every time someone likes or dislikes a <br />57 <br />� � r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.